MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163970352 · doi:10.1109/tip.2006.873446

A segmentation-based regularization term for image deconvolution

2006· article· en· W2163970352 on OpenAlexaff
Max Mignotte

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Image Processing · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaximum a posteriori estimationBlind deconvolutionDeconvolutionImage restorationMathematicsArtificial intelligenceImage segmentationRegularization (linguistics)SegmentationPattern recognition (psychology)Prior probabilityAlgorithmBayesian probabilityImage processingComputer scienceImage (mathematics)StatisticsMaximum likelihood

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a new and original inhomogeneous restoration (deconvolution) model under the Bayesian framework for observed images degraded by space-invariant blur and additive Gaussian noise. In this model, regularization is achieved during the iterative restoration process with a segmentation-based a priori term. This adaptive edge-preserving regularization term applies a local smoothness constraint to pre-estimated constant-valued regions of the target image. These constant-valued regions (the segmentation map) of the target image are obtained from a preliminary Wiener deconvolution estimate. In order to estimate reliable segmentation maps, we have also adopted a Bayesian Markovian framework in which the regularized segmentations are estimated in the maximum a posteriori (MAP) sense with the joint use of local Potts prior and appropriate Gaussian conditional luminance distributions. In order to make these segmentations unsupervised, these likelihood distributions are estimated in the maximum likelihood sense. To compute the MAP estimate associated to the restoration, we use a simple steepest descent procedure resulting in an efficient iterative process converging to a globally optimal restoration. The experiments reported in this paper demonstrate that the discussed method performs competitively and sometimes better than the best existing state-of-the-art methods in benchmark tests.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations54
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Image ProcessingSame topicAdvanced Image Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207