Deep Blur Mapping: Exploiting High-Level Semantics by Deep Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The human visual system excels at detecting local blur of visual images, but the underlying mechanism is not well understood. Traditional views of blur such as reduction in energy at high frequencies and loss of phase coherence at localized features have fundamental limitations. For example, they cannot well discriminate flat regions from blurred ones. Here we propose that high-level semantic information is critical in successfully identifying local blur. Therefore, we resort to deep neural networks that are proficient at learning high-level features and propose the first end-to-end local blur mapping algorithm based on a fully convolutional network. By analyzing various architectures with different depths and design philosophies, we empirically show that high-level features of deeper layers play a more important role than low-level features of shallower layers in resolving challenging ambiguities for this task. We test the proposed method on a standard blur detection benchmark and demonstrate that it significantly advances the state-of-the-art (ODS F-score of 0.853). Furthermore, we explore the use of the generated blur maps in three applications, including blur region segmentation, blur degree estimation, and blur magnification.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".