MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160966992 · doi:10.1109/tip.2005.849319

Design-based texture feature fusion using Gabor filters and co-occurrence probabilities

2005· article· en· W2160966992 on OpenAlexaff
David A. Clausi, Deng Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Image Processing · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceFeature (linguistics)Gabor filterSegmentationFeature vectorImage segmentationFeature extractionComputer scienceDimensionality reductionFilter (signal processing)Image textureComputer visionMathematicsCurse of dimensionalityPrincipal component analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A design-based method to fuse Gabor filter and grey level co-occurrence probability (GLCP) features for improved texture recognition is presented. The fused feature set utilizes both the Gabor filter's capability of accurately capturing lower and mid-frequency texture information and the GLCP's capability in texture information relevant to higher frequency components. Evaluation methods include comparing feature space separability and comparing image segmentation classification rates. The fused feature sets are demonstrated to produce higher feature space separations, as well as higher segmentation accuracies relative to the individual feature sets. Fused feature sets also outperform individual feature sets for noisy images, across different noise magnitudes. The curse of dimensionality is demonstrated not to affect segmentation using the proposed the 48-dimensional fused feature set. Gabor magnitude responses produce higher segmentation accuracies than linearly normalized Gabor magnitude responses. Feature reduction using principal component analysis is acceptable for maintaining the segmentation performance, but feature reduction using the feature contrast method dramatically reduced the segmentation accuracy. Overall, the designed fused feature set is advocated as a means for improving texture segmentation performance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.289
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations195
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Image ProcessingSame topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207