Wavelet-Based Texture Retrieval using Independent Component Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, a novel approach to texture retrieval using independent component analysis (ICA) in wavelet domain is proposed. It is well recognized that the wavelet coefficients in different subbands are statistically correlated, resulting in the fact that the product of the marginal distributions of wavelet coefficients is not accurate enough to characterize the stochastic properties of texture images. To tackle this problem, we employ (ICA) in feature extraction to decorrelate the analysis coefficients in different subbands, followed by modeling the marginal distributions of the separated sources using generalized Gaussian density (GGD), and perform similarity measure based on the maximum likelihood criterion. It is demonstrated by simulation results on a database consisting of 1776 texture images that the proposed method improve the accuracy of texture image retrieval in terms of average retrieval rate, compared with the traditional method using GGD for feature extraction and Kullback-Leibler divergence for similarity measure.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it