Texture Classification from Random Features
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
Inspired by theories of sparse representation and compressed sensing, this paper presents a simple, novel, yet very powerful approach for texture classification based on random projection, suitable for large texture database applications. At the feature extraction stage, a small set of random features is extracted from local image patches. The random features are embedded into a bag-of-words model to perform texture classification; thus, learning and classification are carried out in a compressed domain. The proposed unconventional random feature extraction is simple, yet by leveraging the sparse nature of texture images, our approach outperforms traditional feature extraction methods which involve careful design and complex steps. We have conducted extensive experiments on each of the CUReT, the Brodatz, and the MSRC databases, comparing the proposed approach to four state-of-the-art texture classification methods: Patch, Patch-MRF, MR8, and LBP. We show that our approach leads to significant improvements in classification accuracy and reductions in feature dimensionality.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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