MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157190232 · doi:10.1109/tip.2006.877407

An edge-guided image interpolation algorithm via directional filtering and data fusion

2006· article· en· W2157190232 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 · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpolation (computer graphics)Stairstep interpolationAlgorithmRinging artifactsPixelMathematicsBilinear interpolationNearest-neighbor interpolationImage scalingLinear interpolationArtificial intelligenceImage resolutionComputer scienceSpline interpolationComputer visionImage processingImage (mathematics)Pattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preserving edge structures is a challenge to image interpolation algorithms that reconstruct a high-resolution image from a low-resolution counterpart. We propose a new edge-guided nonlinear interpolation technique through directional filtering and data fusion. For a pixel to be interpolated, two observation sets are defined in two orthogonal directions, and each set produces an estimate of the pixel value. These directional estimates, modeled as different noisy measurements of the missing pixel are fused by the linear minimum mean square-error estimation (LMMSE) technique into a more robust estimate, using the statistics of the two observation sets. We also present a simplified version of the LMMSE-based interpolation algorithm to reduce computational cost without sacrificing much the interpolation performance. Experiments show that the new interpolation techniques can preserve edge sharpness and reduce ringing artifacts.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.825
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.008
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.293 · 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