MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2260648485 · doi:10.5220/0005268904110418

A Review of Hough Transform and Line Segment Detection Approaches

2015· review· en· W2260648485 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Object Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHough transformComputer scienceLine (geometry)Artificial intelligenceSegmentationLine segmentTable (database)Computer visionImage segmentationImage processingRange (aeronautics)Image (mathematics)Data miningEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a wide range of image processing and computer vision problems, line segment detection is one of the most critical challenges. For more than three decades researchers have contributed to build more robust and accurate algorithms with faster performance. In this paper we review the main approaches and in particular the Hough transform and its extensions, which are among the most well-known techniques for the detection of straight lines in a digital image. This paper is based on extensive practical research and is organised into two main parts. In the first part, the HT and its major research directions and limitations are discussed. In the second part of the paper, state-of-the-art line segmentation techniques are reviewed and categorized into three main groups with fundamentally distinctive characteristics. Their relative advantages and disadvantages are compared and summarised in a table.

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 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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.716

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage and Object Detection TechniquesFrench-language works237,207