MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121673205 · doi:10.1109/icip.2002.1038155

Fractal-wavelet image denoising

2003· article· en· W2121673205 on OpenAlexaff
Mohsen Ghazel, G.H. Freeman, Edward R. Vrscay

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings - International Conference on Image Processing · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Signal Denoising Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaveletFractal transformFractal compressionArtificial intelligenceFractalWavelet transformMathematicsSmoothingImage compressionComputer visionPattern recognition (psychology)Fractal analysisComputer scienceImage processingAlgorithmImage (mathematics)Fractal dimensionMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a simple yet effective fractal-wavelet scheme for edge-preserving smoothing of noisy images. Over the past decade, there has been significant interest in fractal coding for the purpose of image compression. Fractal-wavelet transforms were introduced in an effort to reduce the blockiness and computational complexity that are inherent in fractal image compression. Applications of fractal-based coding to other aspects of image processing, however, have received little attention. The authors proposed a simple yet effective fractal-based image denoising scheme that is applied in the spatial domain of the image. We extend the application of this fractal denoising scheme to the wavelet domain of the image. We find that when the wavelet transform of the noisy image is simply fractally coded, a significant amount of the noise is suppressed. However, one can go a step further and estimate the fractal code of the wavelet transform of the original noise-free image from that of the wavelet transform of the noisy image. The use of the quadtree partitioning scheme for the purpose of fractal-wavelet coding results in a significantly enhanced and restored representation of the original noisy image. The enhancement is consistent with the human visual system where extra smoothing is performed in flat and low activity regions and a lower degree of smoothing is performed near high frequency components, e.g. edges, of the image. The main advantage of the wavelet-based fractal denoising scheme over the standard fractal denoising scheme is that it is computationally less expensive.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.281 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations24
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings - International Conference on Image ProcessingSame topicImage and Signal Denoising MethodsFrench-language works237,207