MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910610030 · doi:10.4208/cicp.2008.v4.p195

Lipschitz and Total-Variational Regularization for Blind Deconvolution

2008· article· en· W2910610030 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

VenueCommunications in Computational Physics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegularization (linguistics)DeconvolutionLipschitz continuityBlind deconvolutionMathematicsPoint spread functionApplied mathematicsMathematical analysisMathematical optimizationComputer scienceAlgorithmComputer visionArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In [3], Chan and Wong proposed to use total variational regularization for both images and point spread functions in blind deconvolution. Their experimental results show that the detail of the restored images cannot be recovered. In this paper, we consider images in Lipschitz spaces, and propose to use Lipschitz regularization for images and total variational regularization for point spread functions in blind deconvolution. Our experimental results show that such combination of Lipschitz and total variational regularization methods can recover both images and point spread functions quite well.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.535
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.273 · 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