MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896184058 · doi:10.1109/tip.2018.2874284

High-quality Image Restoration Using Low-Rank Patch Regularization and Global Structure Sparsity

2018· article· en· W2896184058 on OpenAlexafffund
Mingli Zhang, Christian Desrosiers

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Image Processing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsImage restorationRegularization (linguistics)Artificial intelligenceIterative reconstructionPixelComputer scienceResidualImage resolutionPattern recognition (psychology)DeblurringNorm (philosophy)MathematicsComputer visionAlgorithmImage (mathematics)Image processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, approaches based on nonlocal self similarity and global structure regularization have led to significant improvements in image restoration. Nonlocal self similarity exploits the repetitiveness of small image patches as a powerful prior in the reconstruction process. Likewise, global structure regularization is based on the principle that the structure of objects in the image is represented by a relatively small portion of pixels. Enforcing this structural information to be sparse can thus reduce the occurrence of reconstruction artifacts. So far, most image restoration approaches have considered one of these two strategies, but not both. This paper presents a novel image restoration method that combines nonlocal self similarity and global structure sparsity in a single efficient model. Group of similar patches are reconstructed simultaneously, via an adaptive regularization technique based on the weighted nuclear norm. Moreover, global structure is preserved using an innovative strategy, which decomposes the image into a smooth component and a sparse residual, the latter regularized using l1 norm. An optimization technique, based on the Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers (ADMM) algorithm, is used to recover corrupted images efficiently. The performance of the proposed method is evaluated on two important image restoration tasks: image completion and super-resolution. Experimental results show our method to outperform state-of-the-art approaches for these tasks, for various types and levels of image corruption.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations66
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Image ProcessingSame topicAdvanced Image Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207