MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2293983667 · doi:10.1109/spis.2015.7422316

Quaternion-based salient region detection using scale space analysis

2015· article· en· W2293983667 on OpenAlexaff
Masoumeh Rezaei Abkenar, M. Omair Ahmad

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVisual Attention and Saliency Detection
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalientQuaternionArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceScale spacePattern recognition (psychology)Computer visionPixelKernel (algebra)Entropy (arrow of time)Scale (ratio)RGB color modelFeature (linguistics)Image processingMathematicsImage (mathematics)Geography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A salient region is the most distinctive part of the image that captures human's attention. Saliency detection is a fundamental characteristic of the human visual system. Finding computational models which are able to detect salient regions is a challenging task for image processing and computer vision applications. Salient regions of various sizes can be detected from different scales. Therefore, selecting the best scales is an important issue. In this paper, an efficient multi-scale method to find salient regions is proposed. In order to include more features in evaluating saliency of a pixel, feature maps are generated using components of both the RGB and YUV color spaces. These features are combined into quaternions. Detecting salient regions of different sizes is addressed by utilizing a scale space analysis. Salient regions are detected by convolving the image amplitude spectrum with a low-pass Gaussian kernel of multiple scales. To incorporate more meaningful information, more than one scale is considered based on entropy criterion. The final saliency map is generated by normalizing the weighted saliency maps of these scales. Experiments are conducted on a dataset of natural images to evaluate the performance of the proposed method. Results show that the proposed method provides larger values of area under receiver operating characteristics curve, precision, recall and F-measure, in comparison to some of the state-of-the-art methods.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionFrench-language works237,207