Discernible image mosaic with edge-aware adaptive tiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a novel method to produce discernible image mosaics, with relatively large image tiles replaced by images drawn from a database, to resemble a target image. Compared to existing works on image mosaics, the novelty of our method is two-fold. Firstly, believing that the presence of visual edges in the final image mosaic strongly supports image perception, we develop an edge-aware photo retrieval scheme which emphasizes the preservation of visual edges in the target image. Secondly, unlike most previous works which apply a pre-determined partition to an input image, our image mosaics are composed of adaptive tiles, whose sizes are determined based on the available images in the database and the objective of maximizing resemblance to the target image. We show discernible image mosaics obtained by our method, using image collections of only moderate size. To evaluate our method, we conducted a user study to validate that the image mosaics generated present both globally and locally appropriate visual impressions to the human observers. Visual comparisons with existing techniques demonstrate the superiority of our method in terms of mosaic quality and perceptibility.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".