MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120001410 · doi:10.1109/icip.2008.4712326

A nonlocal-means approach to exemplar-based inpainting

2008· article· en· W2120001410 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexander Wong, Jeff Orchard

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInpaintingArtificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)Similarity (geometry)Computer scienceSample (material)PixelComputer visionPattern recognition (psychology)Function (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces a novel approach to the problem of image inpainting through the use of nonlocal-means. In traditional inpainting techniques, only local information around the target regions are used to fill in the missing information, which is insufficient in many cases. More recent inpainting techniques based on the concept of exemplar-based synthesis utilize nonlocal information but in a very limited way. In the proposed algorithm, we use nonlocal image information from multiple samples within the image. The contribution of each sample to the reconstruction of a target pixel is determined using an weighted similarity function and aggregated to form the missing information. Experimental results show that the proposed method yields quantitative and qualitative improvements compared to the current exemplar-based approach. The proposed approach can also be integrated into existing exemplar-based inpainting techniques to provide improved visual quality.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations184
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image SynthesisFrench-language works237,207