Algebraic Multi-Grid Based Multi-Focus Image Fusion Using Watershed Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes a new multi-focus image fusion method named AMGW, and it is based on algebraic multi-grid (AMG) algorithm and watershed segmentation method. In the implementation, the coarse grids of the source images are first extracted with the affinity matrix, and with a spatial interpolation function the approximation of the source image can be reconstructed from the coarse grids. A considerable amount of edge and textural information is still preserved in such approximation. The two source images are compared with their corresponding approximation block by block respectively by employing the mean square error (MSE) as a sharpness criterion. The MSE values are then used to identify the blocks of higher fidelity from the source images. The watershed segmentation is applied to those uncertain blocks in one source image. The two source images are compared again with the MSEs of the segmented regions. The fused image is obtained by reserving the blocks and regions with higher MSEs and applying a post-processing operation. Experimental results demonstrate that the AMG-based method outperforms the state-of-the-art fusion approaches in terms of selected objective image quality assessments. The details of the source images are well preserved in the fused image.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".