Automatic Inpainting Scheme for Video Text Detection and Removal
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
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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