MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954836870 · doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.06.061

A GMM-MRF Based Image Segmentation approach for Interface Level Estimation

2019· article· en· W2954836870 on OpenAlexafffund
Zheyuan Liu Hariprasad Kodamana, Artin Afacan Biao Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueIFAC-PapersOnLine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMarkov random fieldInterface (matter)Computer scienceProcess (computing)SegmentationMaximum a posteriori estimationImage segmentationArtificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)Scale (ratio)Layer (electronics)Mixture modelComputer visionPattern recognition (psychology)Maximum likelihoodMathematicsMaterials scienceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maintaining the desired interface level between the top froth layer and the liquid layer plays an important role in achieving high recovery of products in oil sands and related process industries. As varying throughputs and downstream disturbances tend to change the interface level over time, it is an important indicator of the process behavior. In this paper, we propose an approach based on Gaussian mixture model and Markov Random Field (MRF) based unsupervised image segmentation to achieve the real-time accurate measurement of the interface. The image processing problem is solved as a Maximum a Posteriori (MAP) estimation problem employing the MRF framework and the parameters are estimated using the EM algorithm. The proposed approach is validated using the images captured from a laboratory scale equipment designed to simulate the industrial PSV interface.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIFAC-PapersOnLineSame topicSpectroscopy and Chemometric AnalysesFrench-language works237,207