Linkage Between Piecewise Constant Mumford--Shah Model and Rudin--Osher--Fatemi Model and Its Virtue in Image Segmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The piecewise constant Mumford--Shah (PCMS) model and the Rudin--Osher--Fatemi (ROF) model are two important variational models in image segmentation and image restoration, respectively. In this paper, we explore a linkage between these models. We prove that for the two-phase segmentation problem a partial minimizer of the PCMS model can be obtained by thresholding the minimizer of the ROF model. A similar linkage is still valid for multiphase segmentation under specific assumptions. Thus it opens a new segmentation paradigm: image segmentation can be done via image restoration plus thresholding. This new paradigm, which circumvents the innate nonconvex property of the PCMS model, therefore, improves the segmentation performance in both efficiency (much faster than state-of-the-art methods based on the PCMS model, particularly when the phase number is high)the and effectiveness (producing segmentation results with better quality) due to the flexibility of the ROF model in tackling degraded images, such as noisy images, blurry images, or images with information loss. As a by-product of the new paradigm, we derive a novel segmentation method, called thresholded-ROF (T-ROF) method, to illustrate the virtue of managing image segmentation through image restoration techniques. The convergence of the T-ROF method is proved, and elaborate experimental results and comparisons are presented.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".