MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169941178 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2003.1226163

Modelling of multifractal object boundaries

2004· article· en· W2169941178 on OpenAlexaff
Shoaib Ahmed Siddiqui, Witold Kinsner

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical Dynamics and Fractals
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultifractal systemBoundary (topology)FractalMathematicsFractal dimensionWaveletFractal compressionFractal analysisFractal transformMeasure (data warehouse)Mathematical analysisArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceImage processingData miningImage (mathematics)Image compression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a new technique that combines fractal and wavelet analyses to model rough (nonsmooth) but crisp (one-pixel wide) object boundaries that have fractal or multifractal characteristics. The boundary is represented compactly by two sets of descriptors and control points. The first set contains information about complexities present on the boundary and is calculated using a fractal dimension analysis. The second set contains information about the shape of the boundary and is calculated by using wavelet analysis. We apply the midpoint displacement algorithm on the two sets of control points in order to reconstruct boundaries with the required fractal or multifractal dimension. The quality of reconstruction is measured using the Renyi fractal dimension singularity measure. Experimental results produced compression ratios in the range of 300:1 to 450:1, while preserving the complexities of the original boundary, as measured by the above multifractal metrics.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.466
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMathematical Dynamics and FractalsFrench-language works237,207