Automatic Inpainting Scheme for Video Text Detection and Removal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a two stage framework for automatic video text removal to detect and remove embedded video texts and fill-in their remaining regions by appropriate data. In the video text detection stage, text locations in each frame are found via an unsupervised clustering performed on the connected components produced by the stroke width transform (SWT). Since SWT needs an accurate edge map, we develop a novel edge detector which benefits from the geometric features revealed by the bandlet transform. Next, the motion patterns of the text objects of each frame are analyzed to localize video texts. The detected video text regions are removed, then the video is restored by an inpainting scheme. The proposed video inpainting approach applies spatio-temporal geometric flows extracted by bandlets to reconstruct the missing data. A 3D volume regularization algorithm, which takes advantage of bandlet bases in exploiting the anisotropic regularities, is introduced to carry out the inpainting task. The method does not need extra processes to satisfy visual consistency. The experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of both our proposed video text detection approach and the video completion technique, and consequently the entire automatic video text removal and restoration process.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".