A Multi-Objective Decision Making Approach for Solving the Image Segmentation Fusion Problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Image segmentation fusion is defined as the set of methods which aim at merging several image segmentations, in a manner that takes full advantage of the complementarity of each one. Previous relevant researches in this field have been impeded by the difficulty in identifying an appropriate single segmentation fusion criterion, providing the best possible, i.e., the more informative, result of fusion. In this paper, we propose a new model of image segmentation fusion based on multi-objective optimization which can mitigate this problem, to obtain a final improved result of segmentation. Our fusion framework incorporates the dominance concept in order to efficiently combine and optimize two complementary segmentation criteria, namely, the global consistency error and the F-measure (precision-recall) criterion. To this end, we present a hierarchical and efficient way to optimize the multi-objective consensus energy function related to this fusion model, which exploits a simple and deterministic iterative relaxation strategy combining the different image segments. This step is followed by a decision making task based on the so-called "technique for order performance by similarity to ideal solution". Results obtained on two publicly available databases with manual ground truth segmentations clearly show that our multi-objective energy-based model gives better results than the classical mono-objective one.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".