A study on continuous max-flow and min-cut approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose and study novel max-flow models in the continuous setting, which directly map the discrete graph-based max-flow problem to its continuous optimization formulation. We show such a continuous max-flow model leads to an equivalent min-cut problem in a natural way, as the corresponding dual model. In this regard, we revisit basic conceptions used in discrete max-flow / min-cut models and give their new explanations from a variational perspective. We also propose corresponding continuous max-flow and min-cut models constrained by priori supervised information and apply them to interactive image segmentation/labeling problems. We prove that the proposed continuous max-flow and min-cut models, with or without supervised constraints, give rise to a series of global binary solutions λ*(x) ϵ {0,1}, which globally solves the original nonconvex image partitioning problems. In addition, we propose novel and reliable multiplier-based max-flow algorithms. Their convergence is guaranteed by classical optimization theories. Experiments on image segmentation, unsupervised and supervised, validate the effectiveness of the discussed continuous max-flow and min-cut models and suggested max-flow based algorithms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".