MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151946153 · doi:10.1109/crv.2012.19

A Learning Probabilistic Approach for Object Segmentation

2012· article· en· W2151946153 on OpenAlexaff
Guillaume Larivière, Mohand Saïd Allili

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceSegmentationSegmentation-based object categorizationObject (grammar)Image segmentationComputer visionComputer scienceScale-space segmentationProbabilistic logicPattern recognition (psychology)PixelActive shape modelCognitive neuroscience of visual object recognitionMarket segmentationMinimum spanning tree-based segmentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a new method for figure-ground image segmentation based on a probabilistic learning approach of the object shape. Historically, segmentation is mostly defined as a data-driven bottom-up process, where pixels are grouped into regions/objects according to objective criteria, such as region homogeneity, etc. In particular, it aims at creating a partition of the image into contiguous, homogenous regions. In the proposed work, we propose to incorporate prior knowledge about the object shape and category to segment the object from the background. The segmentation process is composed of two parts. In the first part, object shape models are built using sets of object fragments. The second part starts by first segmenting an image into homogenous regions using the mean-shift algorithm. Then, several object hypotheses are tested and validated using the different object shape models as supporting information. As an output, our algorithm identifies the object category, position, as well as its optimal segmentation. Experimental results show the capacity of the approach to segment several object categories.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesFrench-language works237,207