Iterative Refinement of Possibility Distributions by Learning for Pixel-Based Classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes an approach referred as: iterative refinement of possibility distributions by learning (IRPDL) for pixel-based image classification. The IRPDL approach is based on the use of possibilistic reasoning concepts exploiting expert knowledge sources as well as ground possibilistic seeds learning. The set of seeds is constructed by incrementally updating and refining the possibility distributions. Synthetic images as well as real images from the RIDER Breast MRI database are being used to evaluate the IRPDL performance. Its performance is compared with three relevant reference methods: region growing, semi-supervised fuzzy pattern matching, and Markov random fields. The IRDPL performance (in terms of recognition rate, 87.3%) is close to the Markovian method (88.8%) that is considered to be the reference in pixel-based image classification. IRPDL outperforms the other two methods, respectively, at the recognition rates of 83.9% and 84.7%. In addition, the proposed IRPDL requires fewer parameters for the mathematical representation and presents a reduced computational complexity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".