MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156999391 · doi:10.1109/tip.2010.2044965

A Label Field Fusion Bayesian Model and Its Penalized Maximum Rand Estimator for Image Segmentation

2010· article· en· W2156999391 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Image Processing · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRemote-Sensing Image Classification
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceMarkov random fieldSegmentationImage segmentationScale-space segmentationComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Segmentation-based object categorization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a novel segmentation approach based on a Markov random field (MRF) fusion model which aims at combining several segmentation results associated with simpler clustering models in order to achieve a more reliable and accurate segmentation result. The proposed fusion model is derived from the recently introduced probabilistic Rand measure for comparing one segmentation result to one or more manual segmentations of the same image. This non-parametric measure allows us to easily derive an appealing fusion model of label fields, easily expressed as a Gibbs distribution, or as a nonstationary MRF model defined on a complete graph. Concretely, this Gibbs energy model encodes the set of binary constraints, in terms of pairs of pixel labels, provided by each segmentation results to be fused. Combined with a prior distribution, this energy-based Gibbs model also allows for definition of an interesting penalized maximum probabilistic rand estimator with which the fusion of simple, quickly estimated, segmentation results appears as an interesting alternative to complex segmentation models existing in the literature. This fusion framework has been successfully applied on the Berkeley image database. The experiments reported in this paper demonstrate that the proposed method is efficient in terms of visual evaluation and quantitative performance measures and performs well compared to the best existing state-of-the-art segmentation methods recently proposed in the literature.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.647
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.258 · 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