MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121141217 · doi:10.1109/tpami.2010.24

Self-Validated Labeling of Markov Random Fields for Image Segmentation

2010· article· en· W2121141217 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Wei Feng, Jiaya Jia, Zhi-Qiang Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsCutMarkov random fieldInitializationImage segmentationArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Markov chainSegmentationMaxima and minimaRobustness (evolution)Connected-component labelingAlgorithmMathematicsScale-space segmentationMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper addresses the problem of self-validated labeling of Markov random fields (MRFs), namely to optimize an MRF with unknown number of labels. We present graduated graph cuts (GGC), a new technique that extends the binary s-t graph cut for self-validated labeling. Specifically, we use the split-and-merge strategy to decompose the complex problem to a series of tractable subproblems. In terms of Gibbs energy minimization, a suboptimal labeling is gradually obtained based upon a set of cluster-level operations. By using different optimization structures, we propose three practical algorithms: tree-structured graph cuts (TSGC), net-structured graph cuts (NSGC), and hierarchical graph cuts (HGC). In contrast to previous methods, the proposed algorithms can automatically determine the number of labels, properly balance the labeling accuracy, spatial coherence, and the labeling cost (i.e., the number of labels), and are computationally efficient, independent to initialization, and able to converge to good local minima of the objective energy function. We apply the proposed algorithms to natural image segmentation. Experimental results show that our algorithms produce generally feasible segmentations for benchmark data sets, and outperform alternative methods in terms of robustness to noise, speed, and preservation of soft boundaries.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations83
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine IntelligenceSame topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207