MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2518740221 · doi:10.1049/iet-ipr.2016.0098

Image denoising based on sparse representation and gradient histogram

2016· article· en· W2518740221 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

VenueIET Image Processing · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Signal Denoising Methods
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsHistogramArtificial intelligenceSparse approximationPattern recognition (psychology)Image denoisingComputer scienceNoise reductionRepresentation (politics)Histogram matchingImage histogramAdaptive histogram equalizationComputer visionImage (mathematics)Image processingHistogram equalizationImage texture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various image priors, such as sparsity prior, non‐local self‐similarity prior and gradient histogram prior, have been widely used for noise removal, while preserving the image texture. However, the gradient histogram prior used for texture enhancement sometimes generates false textures in the smooth areas. In order to address these problems, the authors propose a robust algorithm combining gradient histogram with sparse representation to obtain good estimates of the sparse coding coefficients of the latent image and realising image denoising while preserving the texture. The proposed model is solved by having a balance between over‐enhancement and over‐smoothing of the texture in order to preserve the natural texture appearance. Experimental results demonstrate the efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed method.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score0.706

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.277 · 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