MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151458958 · doi:10.1109/tip.2010.2070073

Iterative Shrinkage Approach to Restoration of Optical Imagery

2010· article· en· W2151458958 on OpenAlexaff
Elad Shaked, Oleg Michailovich

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Image Processing · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Signal Denoising Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooBlackberry (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeblurringImage restorationIterative reconstructionAlgorithmNoise (video)Iterative methodComputer scienceNoise reductionMaximum a posteriori estimationInverse problemShot noiseMathematicsMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceComputer visionImage processingImage (mathematics)Statistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem of reconstruction of digital images from their degraded measurements is regarded as a problem of central importance in various fields of engineering and imaging sciences. In such cases, the degradation is typically caused by the resolution limitations of an imaging device in use and/or by the destructive influence of measurement noise. Specifically, when the noise obeys a Poisson probability law, standard approaches to the problem of image reconstruction are based upon using fixed-point algorithms which follow the methodology first proposed by Richardson and Lucy. The practice of using these methods, however, shows that their convergence properties tend to deteriorate at relatively high noise levels. Accordingly, in the present paper, a novel method for denoising and/or deblurring of digital images corrupted by Poisson noise is introduced. The proposed method is derived under the assumption that the image of interest can be sparsely represented in the domain of a linear transform. Consequently, a shrinkage-based iterative procedure is proposed, which guarantees the solution to converge to the global maximizer of an associated maximum a posteriori criterion. It is shown in a series of computer-simulated experiments that the proposed method outperforms a number of existing alternatives in terms of stability, precision, and computational efficiency.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Image ProcessingSame topicImage and Signal Denoising MethodsFrench-language works237,207