MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994626047 · doi:10.1109/tip.2019.2903300

Texture Classification in Extreme Scale Variations Using GANet

2019· article· en· W2994626047 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Image Processing · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersTekesAcademy of FinlandInfotech OuluNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPattern recognition (psychology)Texture (cosmology)Texture filteringImage textureConvolutional neural networkScale (ratio)PoolingTexture compression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research in texture recognition often concentrates on recognizing textures with intraclass variations, such as illumination, rotation, viewpoint, and small-scale changes. In contrast, in real-world applications, a change in scale can have a dramatic impact on texture appearance to the point of changing completely from one texture category to another. As a result, texture variations due to changes in scale are among the hardest to handle. In this paper, we conduct the first study of classifying textures with extreme variations in scale. To address this issue, we first propose and then reduce scale proposals on the basis of dominant texture patterns. Motivated by the challenges posed by this problem, we propose a new GANet network where we use a genetic algorithm to change the filters in the hidden layers during network training in order to promote the learning of more informative semantic texture patterns. Finally, we adopt a Fisher vector pooling of a convolutional neural network filter bank feature encoder for global texture representation. Because extreme scale variations are not necessarily present in most standard texture databases, to support the proposed extreme-scale aspects of texture understanding, we are developing a new dataset, the extreme scale variation textures (ESVaT), to test the performance of our framework. It is demonstrated that the proposed framework significantly outperforms the gold-standard texture features by more than 10% on ESVaT. We also test the performance of our proposed approach on the KTHTIPS2b and OS datasets and a further dataset synthetically derived from Forrest, showing the superior performance compared with the state-of-the-art.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations28
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Image ProcessingSame topicGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image SynthesisFrench-language works237,207