MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131178608 · doi:10.1109/tpami.2010.187

Removal of Partial Occlusion from Single Images

2010· article· en· W2131178608 on OpenAlexafffund
Scott McCloskey, Michael Langer, Kaleem Siddiqi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicImage Processing Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer visionOcclusionComputer scienceKernel (algebra)Projection (relational algebra)Classification of discontinuitiesConvolution (computer science)PixelMathematicsAlgorithmArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines large partial occlusions in an image which occur near depth discontinuities when the foreground object is severely out of focus. We model these partial occlusions using matting, with the alpha value determined by the convolution of the blur kernel with a pinhole projection of the occluder. The main contribution is a method for removing the image contribution of the foreground occluder in regions of partial occlusion, which improves the visibility of the background scene. The method consists of three steps. First, the region of complete occlusion is estimated using a curve evolution method. Second, the alpha value at each pixel in the partly occluded region is estimated. Third, the intensity contribution of the foreground occluder is removed in regions of partial occlusion. Experiments demonstrate the method's ability to remove the effects of partial occlusion in single images with minimal user input.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations13
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine IntelligenceSame topicImage Processing Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207